Europe's question? Whether US is still an ally or not
(euperspectives.eu)
EuropeNo.
America isn't even an American ally.
Hey, at least we can all agree on supporting Israel!
FFS no, obviously not.
There's a serious amount of threats and hostile actions the US has taken against Europe. And it's not just this administration.
That's not subjectieve.
Murican here. We aren't even our own ally. Any country that considers us an ally is looking through rose-tinted goggles at what we could be, and clinging to that fantasy while ignoring what we are.
We need to get our shit together and actually keep it that way for at least a few decades before I'd expect any measure of trust from the global community.
Until then, yeah I wouldn't sign any agreements with the US that extend past a presidential administration cuz as soon as a relatively good one leaves, we're liable to put another hue-shifted Hitler in power.
Took the words out of my mouth, the USA is the enemy of its own citizens!
Also American here. The very stupid but correct answer is that America is an ally of Europe when the president is a Democrat, and America is not at all an ally when the president is a Republican. Which sadly means we cannot be a trusted ally and Europe would be wise to buy weapons elsewhere and create alliances elsewhere.
The best ally’s are ones that you don’t have to rely on when they’ve time and again been fair weather.
Europe needs to be able to stand on its own feet for more equal footing.
Take a look at the two world wars. European "allies" went to war. Their allies joined. USA refrained until either they were attacked or it looked like not getting involved would harm them. In other words, USA are allies when it suits them. This has always been the case.
WW1 was free for all between empires. WW2 you can talk about allies.
Nope, not really. In WW1 there were two main coalitions, the Central Powers (the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Bulgaria) on one side and the Triple Entente (French Third Republic, the United Kingdom and the Russian Empire) on the other.
WW1 was a world war mostly due to those nations being colonial powers (including the British Dominions (Commonwealth) for simplicity).
Some "associated powers" joined the Entente (a name that was replaced by the term Allied Powers over time) with the beginning of the war, shortly after and in general over the course of the war (most notably the USA in 1917), and the Russian Empire left in 1917 (due to some revolution stuff, but different chapter and they did not "change sides" or something) but the only nation that actually changed sides during the war was the Kingdom of Italy that after not participating initially joined the Allies in 1915 (they were part of a Triple Alliance with the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the war).
So no, it was not "free for all Empire vs Empire" in WW1, it was two very stable military alliances against each other whose members controlled most of the globe at that time.
Yes of course. But during WW1 alliances really weren't stable when you look at a bigger picture. It was much more opportunistic than ww2. Germany vs Austria, Austria vs Ottomans, British Empire vs Russia, British vs French.
Latter we had this more homogeneous allied block.
I am not aware of any inner-alliance battles fought during WW1. And I don't think there were any. But if you know more than that and can provide sources, please, I am always interested in learning new things.
Spoiler: the answer is "no". If you must fear that every four or so years, your supposed "ally" will be taken over by a traitorous, corrupt moron, you have! No! Ally!
Fool me once, fool me twice, and all that jazz.
Now geht on with it!
I think more Europeans need to realise that the only countries which care about the security of European countries are European countries.
Canada enters the group chat.
Which is what realists have told us all along, post-cold-war optimism be damned...
Eh, not necessarily. In the last decade or two though... yeah, definitely. I don't think the US will ever recover the good will we once had.
This sentiment is a major part of the MAGA platform - just swap “European” for “American.”
Why become isolationist? It’s a weak position. What about countries like Canada, Japan, India, Mexico, etc? Just because the US sucks right now doesn’t mean the rest of the world shouldn’t work together.
I definitely think Europe should have strong relationships with good allies, like Canada and Japan. Hopefully they would both be reliable.
Mexico, potentially yes, they could be a reliable ally. As for India I'm not so sure, because India seems to want to be quite friendly with Russia (I think India buys a lot of military equipment from Russia), and Russia has been waging war against Europe for the last 12 years.
India has been a Russian ally since the West backed Pakistan in their war 60 years ago.
Just because they are purportedly a democracy doesn't make them western allies in any way. They claimed to be neutral (3rd world) during the cold war and after, but look at their actions, look at where they buy weapons, who they trade with.
They're mercantilist first just like China, but be under no delusion they would not hesitate to sell us out for pennies if we were foolish enough to embrace them.
This was a call for independence (particularly with regard to defense), not for isolationism. They may share some features, but are two are very different things indeed.
“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.
But tell me specifically the difference between becoming more independent vs isolationist. Are you simply advocating for stronger European militaries? Ironically, MAGA has also been asking for that - they want Europe to spend more on their militaries.
My position is that the stronger and more prolific the alliances are among nations of the world, the less each individual country will need to spend on militarization (a complete waste of resources). That’s not suggesting that Europe shouldn’t be spending more on their militaries in light of recent events. That’s just an unfortunate consequence of a shitty disposition of US isolationism.
Independence rhetoric does closely align with the rise of right wing nationalism we see throughout the world. I’m curious how you distance yourself from that movement.
“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.
You're not wrong, there are broader and narrower definitions of security. For the purposes of my posting, I used it in a more narrow, defensive meaning.
But tell me specifically the difference between becoming more independent vs isolationist.
Happy to. "Independent", in a security/defensive context, means that you can organise your own defense if need be. This does not mean that you're unwilling to cooperate. Like you said correctly, there are great benefits to be had from military alliances: joint development means reduced R&D and maintenance costs for everyone involved. Compatible command structures and shared strategies improve security for those inside and deterrence of those outside the alliance. But: if allegiances shift and your former partners drop out of the alliance, you're not opening yourself up to any vulnerabilities - unlike large parts of Europe, which has entirely relied on the U.S. for things like air defense, intelligence and nuclear deterrence, but also conventional land operations, and now needs to build up these capabilities in a rush.
"Isolationism", on the other hand, means you're flat-out unwilling to cooperate or care. You refuse to enter alliances, be bound by treaties of any kind, and generally take no interest in getting involved with the rest of the world, including the use of soft power.
The reason you're suspicious of the word "independence" and connect it to right-wing populism is because, like so many other words, right-wing populists love to abuse it: they say "independence" because it has a nicer ring to it, but in fact, they seek isolationism. And in doing so, they actually weaken their nations by passing up the benefits of cooperation. I dare not say whether that is up to irony or design - because they were bought by foreign powers looking to weaken the nation in question.
“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.
More spending doesn't automatically equal stronger. Especially if you're spending that money on highly complex equipment produced by an openly hostile third party, which can end its supply of spare parts at any moment and therefore render the capabilities purchased with that equipment all but useless.
Obviously not.
This is reaching "battered spouse" levels of delusion that the question is still being asked even.
There is no delusion... or incompetence... or stupidity... or whatever other lie voters tell themselves to explain their politicians idiocy. It's basically always corruption.
No it’s not. Deal with it finally.
Europe is a colonial subject at least since middle east wars started. Some would even argue that its ever since end of WW2, but I'm not so sure of that.
The problem didn't start with current admin, its just more pronounced now.
One counter argument to colonialism is that many genuinely believed in liberal world order. Some stil do.
Right now, it is ally to no one, not even itself.
Russia comes to mind...
'Cause every now and then I kick the living shit outta me!'
But is an ally a trustworthy ally if it can be this unstable between presidents
An untrustworthy ally is an ally all the same. At least it's unlikely to side with the enemy.
At least it’s unlikely to side with the enemy.
Is it, though? Just look at recent events.
The recent events are what has convinced me that it's unlikely to side with the enemy.
Even in the situation where the president of USA has sided with the enemy, the US as a state has not. It has done comparatively small pro-Russia moves at the whims of its president, but those have been reverted within a week or so. With Trump in charge the US is much less of an ally that it would be without him.
But with even the president becoming a staunch supporter of the enemy the state apparatus still managed to only drop at worst to being a neutral country and in reality remaining an ally, albeit a very weak and useless ally. And that's actually rather reassuring.
But, at the same time, USA has shown that it can really use various tools it has that amount to being kill-switches. Therefore, it is imperative to not rely on any US technology, components or intelligence. Good to have it atop our normal systems, but everything should work well enough even if USA withdraws all support.
And: Withdrawing support does not equal siding with the enemy in a war. It does of course help the enemy, but there is zero risk of USA starting to shoot tomahawks into Bankovska in Kyiv anytime soon.
It so happened a few days ago that the President of the USA declared at one of his rallies that he'd welcome it if someone took out Los Angeles or San Diego.
It sounds like it's pointless to ask if the US is an ally of Europe, when it's not even an ally of its own largest cities.
Europe should not rely on the U.S. anymore and should focus on european alternatives
I think Europe needs to act as if the US is not an ally. I like to think the US would fight in NATO, but most Americans don't care. Europe is a vacation destination at best.
A lot of Americans I know feel like Europe are snobs and weak. Since my childhood, everyone jokes about how French and Germans think they are better then Americans. European universities and companies are looked down upon in the US as subpar (except UK).
The thing is that Americans all know dozens of immigrants, including Europeans, but we barely know anyone who left the US. The bias builds itself.
Since my childhood, everyone jokes about how French and Germans think they are better then Americans.
They aren't wrong TBH, European anti-americanism is firmly entrenched.
Since my childhood, everyone jokes about how French and Germans think they are better then Americans.
They aren’t wrong TBH, European anti-americanism is firmly entrenched.
And well-founded.
if you have to ask the question then the answer is obviously no
The current regime in the US is a corrupt group of traitors who don't have allies. They only understand transactional relations, even in their own homes.
The US is only on your side now due to money, power, and what you can do for the people at the top. It's no longer about shared history, democratic ideology, or shared safety on the global stage. Act accordingly.
Aaliances should be persistent across regimes otherwise they are not trustworthy alliances
Exactly. They're made on behalf of the nations, not the leadership of today.
Historically, that generally persisted with the USA since alliances are made by Congress, not the Executive. Since no laws bind the Executive Branch anymore (at the moment), you can't trust anything about how the treaties will be acted upon.
I think US is an ally, but a very weak one.
It's ally in the sense that it's very unlikely to side with the enemy in an actual war, but not in the sense that it could be trusted to physically help with troops and equipment under its command, should enemy soldiers start invading EU.
But, what's important is that we cannot base anything on an assumption that some sort of military help, ammunition, intelligence data, equipment or spare parts will be delivered by the US in case of a war.
So, US will be our ally again once Trump has been made powerless, but it's important not to rely on any data or technology coming from US or connected to US, because they will eventually just elect another Trump.
Someone’s asking this question literally a decade late but oh well.
We are not, guys. Sorry. Many of us would prefer to be, but we are not in charge at the moment.
but we are not in charge at the moment.
Will you ever be back in charge in the foreseeable future, though? I have my doubts and my fears for you guys. You are currently governed by an executive branch that openly disregards court orders and legislative decisions, and that already has instituted purges in many authorities and institutions that could be employed to make them obey the law. It is very hard to come back from that.
Doubt. America is a dead country walking. It’s a deliberate drain of resources by a group of people who plan to leave once it’s drained and they are tired of being a billionaire cowboy.
Culturally EU and US are very similar, and it makes all the sense to for them to be allies. However the current US administration is very hostile to the EU, and there is no doubt that they aren't allies, at least in the near future.
The more important question is to know if this is restricted to the current administration, or if they just let the mask fall off.
The more important question is to know if this is restricted to the current administration, or if they just let the mask fall off.
Trump I was considered an aberration. Trump II proved it was not. I'm not sure how you can still be unsure about this. The post-truth, pro-authoritarian MAGA cancer goes deeper than Trump, and unless it is purged, it will spread and twist its host into shapes even more abhorrent than what we're already seeing.
Latter
Whatever it is, they (the govt) are not reliable.
Neither is the voting populace electing said government repeatedly.
You have to be very, very slow to keep asking at this point
Humanity seems to be very slow.
Nah.
this regime isn’t - but the people are
The people who elected this particular regime twice?
I understand you're trying to highlight the millions of Americans who did not vote for this shitshow and are as horrified at what their country has become as any onlooker is. And yet, that perspective is irrelevant as far as Europe is concerned. If these forces within American society were not strong enough to avert Trump I and II, and if they weren't strong enough to purge the MAGA cancer in the Biden interregnum, Europe should not bank on them being stronger in the future. Europe should aid and support them, sure. But make plans that do not in any way rely on the U.S. returning to normal.
it’s the same forces throughout the world - “right wing politics” backed by “conservative” monopolists.
agreed ^^
ie - milei, noboa, la pen, meloni, wilders, bolsanaro, modi, orban since trump first took power - even germany almost went far right this year
even germany almost went far right this year
It sure did. A federal state will probably soon be run by far-right extremists. Fuck that.
Trump is a symptom, not the cause. The American people are the cause.
There goes democracy
